Patna High Court
ASHARFI SAWversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is disposed, directing the petitioners to file a fresh petition within four weeks and the respondents to resolve the matter thereafter.
Summary
The petitioners, Asharfi and others, claim ownership of Raiyti/Purchased land in Lakhisarai and allege that the Eastern Railway intends to construct an underpass over their land without compensation. They sought writs to restrain the construction, protect peaceful possession, and compel acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act with compensation. The Union of India argued the petition lacked supporting documents, while the petitioner's counsel suggested filing a fresh petition before the General Manager of Eastern Railway. The court found the present petition premature and directed the petitioners to file a fresh petition within four weeks, after which the respondents must take the matter to its logical conclusion. No writs were issued pending the fresh petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the railway can construct an underpass over the petitioner's land without acquisition and compensation.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in its present form.
- Whether the petitioners should first approach the General Manager of Eastern Railway for land acquisition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- railway underpass
- writ petition
- compensation
- property rights
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.800 of 2026
======================================================
ASHARFI SAW LATE TULSI SAW PIRIBAZAR P.S PIRIBAZAR
DISTRICT LAKHISARAI
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.
2. The D.R.M. Eastern Railway, D.R.M. Office, Malda, West Bengal.
3. The State of Bihar Through, Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Lakhsarai.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai Sadar, District- Lakhisarai.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.
7. The Circle Officer, Suryagarha Anchal, District- Lakhisarai.
8. The S.H.O., Piri Bazar, Police Station.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
Mr. Md. Kamil Akhtar, AC to AAG-5
For the UOI : Mr. Krishna Kant Tiwari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ
commanding the respondents not to construct the
Railway under pass, over the land of the petitioner
which is Raiyti/Purchased land of the petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.800 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
restraining the respondents not to make any
interference in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ
commanding the respondent to first acquire the
land under the provision of land acquisition act
and pay the compensation or vacate the land of the
petitioner.
(iv) For any other relief or reliefs for
which petitioner is entitled.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land belongs to him but the Railways without compensation,
have decided to use the said land for the construction of
Railway Under Pass.
4. Learned counsel representing the Union of India
submits that the writ petition is bereft of supporting documents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
will suffice if the fresh petition preferred before the General
Manager, Eastern Railways, Kolkata (respondent no. 1) is taken
to its logical conclusion.
6. Learned counsel representing the Union of India
has no objection to it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.800 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
7. In that background, the writ petition stands
disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the concerned
respondent in next four weeks. If such fresh petition is preferred
in next four weeks, the concerned respondent is directed to take
the matter to its logical conclusion at an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…